161463 - (xhtml2) XHTML 2.0 tracking

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Core Graveyard :: Tracking, enhancement)

Description

[Aaron Kaluszka]

Here we go again...

Comment 1

[Heikki Toivonen (remove -bugzilla when emailing directly)]

This is a long ways off...

Comment 2

[Micah Dubinko]

Adding dependency on XForms

Comment 3

[Kai Lahmann (is there, where MNG is)]

alias for faster searching

Comment 4

[Micah Dubinko]

adding dependency on XML Events

Comment 5

[Marcus S]

Sjoerd Visscher ( [e-mail] ) has a XBL based prototype of parts of
the XHTML 2.0 Draft at http://w3future.com/weblog/gems/xhtml2.xml

I don't see any information regarding which license the code is under, but it
would not hurt to contact him and check it out -- I will let you guys know what
happens.

Comment 6

[Sjoerd Visscher]

You can use my XBL files if you want. But I'm pretty sure it's not the way to
implement xhtml 2.0 in Mozilla. It's too slow to convert each node to it's xhtml
1 .1 equivalent with javascript. An XSL conversion is much faster (
http://w3future.com/weblog/gems/xhtml2.xsl ) and it is more flexible than XBL.

Comment 7

[John Christopher Jones]

I'd be extremely happy if Composer only wrote XHTML2.  It seems like it would be
easier than HTML4 on front and back end.

Comment 8

[Axel Hecht]

re #6, I looked at at both the xslt and the xbl implementation.

First of all, let's rule out xslt. It's very unlikely fast, for one. But more
importantly, it changes the displayed document, which makes it impossible
to use js on the original document.

About the performance drag for the xbl version, the attribute foo is probably
really simple and doens't require js, as long as it isn't requiring any
translation of the values.
http://www.xulplanet.com/tutorials/xultu/xblatin.html talks attribute 
inheritance. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xbl/xbl.html#anonymous-attributes
calls it forwarding, of course ;-)
Adding something like Attribute Value Templates (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt.html#dt-attribute-value-template) to XBL sounds like
a bad idea on a second thought, as more complex algorithms in the evaluation
cause trouble to keep stuff synched in dxhtml2. (Yeah, fancy acronym.)
I don't know if this is required by a xhtml2 implementation, though.

Stuff like the object tag, unifying two html tags is probably a bit more
difficult.

Sjoerd, maybe you could add a relicensed version of the mozilla part of your
stuff to this bug?

Comment 9

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

*** Bug 186985 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 10

[Dominik]

Attachment: New XHTML 2.0 tags in res\html.css

I modify the html.css. I add XHTML 2.0 selectors.

Comment 11

[Sjoerd Visscher]

From the xhtml 2 spec of the quote element:
"Visual user agents must not add delimiting quotation marks"
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-text.html#sec_8.13.

So you should remove this part:

quote:before {
  content: open-quote;
}

quote:after {
  content: close-quote;
}

Comment 12

[Dominik]

Attachment: New XHTML 2.0 tags in res\html.css ver 0.2

I remove content from quote.

Comment 13

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

That patch uses the wrong namespace for XHTML2.

In any case we must not implement this until XHTML2 is in CR.

Comment 14

[Dominik]

Namespace in patch is form 3.1.1. Strictly Conforming Documents -
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xhtml2-20021218/xhtml2.html What's wrong with it?

Comment 15

[Vedran Miletic]

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xhtml2-20030506/

update

Comment 16

[Dominik]

Mozilla should see the most popular formats like: mpeg, avi, mov (video), mp3,
wav, midi, aiff (sound) not only amimation like gif or mng and images like jpeg,
gif or png. Because in XHTML 2.0 there are not <img>, there are <object>. So
XHTML support not only images (or animations) but also video and sound.

Comment 17

[Robin Lionheart]

adding [meta] and setting component to Tracking

Comment 18

[nnooiissee]

Why was bug 162479 removed from the dependancies?

Comment 19

[Anne (:annevk)]

Because XFrames has nothing to do with XHTML 2.0. It is a standalone XML
language (some published articles get this wrong).

Comment 20

[Tomer Chachamu]

New version:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722

Diff: (changed in green, new in yellow)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/xhtml2-diff.html

Comment 21

[Jonas Nordlund]

Almost a year after the previous update, the 7th draft was published in May 2005:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/

Diff-marked version compared to 20040722 here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/xhtml2-diff.html

Comment 22

[Yani (fr)]

8th draft :
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/

Diff compared to 2005 05 27 :
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/xhtml2-diff.html

Comment 23

[Robin Whittleton]

Guess this is a WONTFIX now then?

http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item119

Comment 24

[Samer Ziadeh]

yeah the w3 will be stopping it. I'm not too fond of this xhtml 5 business though :(

Comment 25

[Jacek Piskozub]

> I'm not too fond of this xhtml 5 business
though :(

I'm sure you mean HTML 5. It seems you really got attached to XHTML ;-)

Comment 26

[Samer Ziadeh]

no xhtml 5, the html5 talks a bit about XHTML

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#relationship-to-xhtml-1.x
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#html-vs-xhtml
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-xhtml-syntax

Comment 27

[:Ms2ger (he/him; ⌚ UTC+1/+2)]

XHTML2 is not going to happen.